Would you go after Tanaka

The reasons for signing him have been thrown out by many baseball people.
No draft picks given up.
Age means entering his prime.
Most teams not letting ace type pitchers reach free agency. So opportunity to get top pitcher via free agency is getting more rare.

But if he is not an ace level pitcher and he gets 5+ years at over $20 mil per season it could turn out to be a bad contract. Incredible season last year in Japan but reports his fastball is around 90 which is no big deal in MLB.

To be honest I am a little on the fence with whether I would want the Rangers to make the commitment.

Could you give us a third options saying I'd be willing for my team to spend considerably for Tanaka without necessarily paying "whatever it takes?" The scouting reports I've read on Tanaka do say that he throws in the low 90's (he doesn't have Darvish's raw stuff), but that he has better control than Darvish and should be something of a Kuroda with better stuff. So, considering my team the Giants gave Tim Lincecum 2 years at 35 million after two crap years that showed his violent torque delivery has caught up with him, I would definitely be cool with them spending 5 years at 18-20 million for Tanaka. However, I would disapprove of a contract giving him more than 5 years or more than 20 million, so I definitely would not want them to spend "all that it takes."

I think once you include the $20 mil posting fee, he's going to cost upward of $100 mil, and I'm not sure he's worth that. He could be, but I think it's a pretty big gamble.
I suspect he'll land on the west coast somewhere, with Seattle the most likely destination

It is a big gamble. However, it does seem like many teams (the Mariners, Cubs, Diamondbacks, Rangers, and Yankees chief among them) are more interested in taking that gamble than spending 60 million plus on the erratic Ervin Santana or 70-80+ million on Garza, who has never had an outstanding season and didn't pitch well for the Rangers after they gave up a solid prospect for him....and I can't say that I blame them.

Although there have been Japanese pitching busts in the past--notably Irabu and Matsuzaka (his 18 win season aside)--the recent successes of Darvish, Iwakuma, and Kuroda have shown that great success in the Japan league can legitimately translate into great success in America...and Tanaka has dominated the Japan league.

I don't think spend considerably (Lincecum money) is an option. Considering that unlike past years every team can negotiate directly and his agent can go back and forth between teams getting them to up the ante that the ante up point is going to be $20 mil per year. Any team not willing to talk those numbers or higher might as well not waste their time and go ahead and start talking to Garza or Santana. In fact I am thinking with Cubs, Yankees and Dodgers bidding the final deal will be in the Lee, Hamels, Cain neighborhood. You almost have to start with spending total what Rangers spent on Darvish last year and add a premium to account for fact all teams have 30 days and not just one. Rangers had Yu in a take it or leave it vice last year. That leverage is gone now and leverage is in Tanaka's hands.

Tanaka will get at least 5 years with at least $20 mil per year and then you tack on the release fee of $20 mil. Actually I am betting his agent will want 6 years or more to carry him all the way through arbitration years and have him looking at next contract immediately upon the 6 year minimum initial control period is completed so he can possibly get 2 huge contracts. That would be what I would ask for if I were his agent.

That is a lot of risk but no doubt that level of risk/commitment is what it will take. Given that the question is rather straightforward. Would you want your team to step up and take on that risk or would you prefer your team be bystanders?

But if he is not an ace level pitcher and he gets 5+ years at over $20 mil per season it could turn out to be a bad contract. Incredible season last year in Japan but reports his fastball is around 90 which is no big deal in MLB.
.

I never said Lincecum money would be enough. As you originally noted above, you asked if Tanaka was worth 5+ years at over $20 million a season. I answered that by stating that, since the Giants were willing to pay Lincecum 17.5 million a year for two years after two years of crap production, I would be more than willing for the Giants to pay Tanaka for 5 years at 20 million per, but not much more (which is still much more than Lincecum money).

Your latest post actually asks a different question from your original one by asking if we would now want our team to pay 6+ years at 20 million plus a year, plus the 20 million posting fee, which adds up to more than the time and money commitment you mentioned in your original post. That being said, I would be wary of my team making such a commitment, but I would much rather them take that gamble than spend 60-70 million on Santana or 80-90 million for Garza.

Darvish yes, Tanaka no. I think he is a #2 or 3 starter.

Vote currently sits at 7-4 saying they would commit whatever it took.

I am still on the fence as to whether I would want the Rangers to take the plunge. But given my belief on what it will take to get him signed decided I had to vote to let someone else take the risk. Difficult because if he turns out to be top of the rotation ace material I will be saying for half a decade wish the ownership had stepped up....

I think my thoughts are a lot like what I was thinking when Cliff Lee left. I would be excited if they agreed to a deal. But if he signs somewhere else that much money left in the budget could fill a lot of needs. Thing is if a team has slotted the kind of money it will take to be in the discussions in the budget there is no free agent I would be willing to look at as a fall back plan. When Lee left Rangers simply took the money and signed Beltre. That worked out well. But I do not see anyone among the free agents this year who would fit like that. Pretty sure for Rangers at least whether Tanaka is added or not there will be no additional major free agents added.

I would be curious for those who have voted who your favorite teams are. And would you envision him just being added to the rotation or do you think this would be something that triggered other moves. For example if the Rangers signed Tanaka I think that would trigger trading one or more of their current pitching staff for additional offense.

I am a Dodger fan and I voted no. While I'd like to see Tanaka on the team and root for him, I believe the Dodgers are about at the limit of what even they can spend. I also believe that their priorities at this point have to be signing Kershaw and Ramirez to extensions. Does that leave any money to go after Tanaka? Who knows. But they do have numerous options for the 5th starter spot and should once again pitch well overall. Scoring runs could be a problem however, if it were my team and I had carte blance, I'd go after a hitter before another pitcher

Interesting to see a Dodger fan saying no. From what I read except for the fact they are over the luxury tax cutoff they are not bumping against their limit. They are over $200 mil. But from what I understand they have a regional tv contract that will be paying $250 mil a year. They could dedicate all that to salary and still have their share of MLB revenues plus ticket sales, other advertising, and merchandise revenue to make a profit with.

Magic Johnson seems determined to have the best of everything in LA. Though with his all out approach he could end up painting himself in to same corner yankees did in past going too long term with players too old to avoid having bad deals on the back end. But right now I do not see any Arod style anchors poised to drag them down.